Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
DOES HARVEST OF THE EUROPEAN GRAYLING, THYMALLUS THYMALLUS
(ACTINOPTERYGII: SALMONIFORMES: SALMONIDAE), CHANGE OVER TIME
WITH DIFFERENT INTENSITY OF FISH STOCKING AND FISHING EFFORT?
Roman LYACH and Jiri REMR
Institute for evaluations and social analyses, Prague, the Czech Republic
Lyach R., Remr J. 2020. Does harvest of the European grayling, Thymallus thymallus (Actinopterygii:
Salmoniformes: Salmonidae), change over time with different intensity of sh stocking and shing
effort? Acta Ichthyol. Piscat. 50 (1): 53–62.
Background. The European grayling, Thymallus thymallus (Linnaeus, 1758), is a sh species of high value in
recreational shing. The monitoring of changes in grayling populations is a high priority in sheries. Data on the
harvest of recreational anglers can potentially serve as an easy and inexpensive way to monitor changes in sh
populations. This study aimed to assess spatio-temporal trends in catches of grayling in a larger geographical area.
Materials and methods. This study analysed harvest rates of grayling by recreational anglers on 241 shing
grounds, in the Czech Republic, within 1986–2015 (30 years). Data from individual angling logbooks were used.
The data were collected by individual anglers and processed by the Czech Fishing Union (Český rybářský svaz).
Results. Over the period of 30 years, Czech anglers harvested a total of 9 928 grayling specimens weighing
altogether 3 357 kg. Within the period surveyed, both parameters (the grayling biomass harvested and the
representation of grayling in overall sh harvest) decreased to 10% of the initial values. The percentage of shing
grounds with a harvest of grayling decreased to 30% of the initial values. Harvest per effort decreased to 20%
of the initial values over 11 years. There was only a weak correlation between sh stocking and sh harvest.
There was a negative relation between the number of angler shing visits with both catch (sh number) and yield
(biomass) of grayling. The harvest was positively correlated with shing effort. The mean size of harvested
grayling remained constant (~0.35 kg) over 30 years.
Conclusion. Harvest of grayling signicantly declined over the last three decades, implying that increased
effort in conservation of grayling is necessary. Future studies should focus on monitoring of the remaining self-
reproducing grayling populations.
Keywords: angling diaries, catch per unit effort, sheries management, population dynamics, salmonids
ACTA ICHTHYOLOGICA ET PISCATORIA (2020) 50 (1): 53–62
* Correspondence: Dr Roman Lyach, Institute for Evaluations and Social Analyses/Institut evaluací a sociálních analýz, 186 00 Prague/Praha, the Czech Republic, phone:
+ 420 737 242 256, e-mail: (RL) lyachroman2@gmail.com, lyachr@seznam.cz, (JR) jiri.remr@inesan.eu, ORCID: (RL) 0000-0001-7783-8256.
DOI: 10.3750/AIEP/02643
INTRODUCTION
In central Europe, the European grayling, Thymallus
thymallus (Linnaeus, 1758), is a sh species of high
value in recreational shing, commercial shing, and
species conservation. Grayling is a native sh species
that used to be common in streams and smaller rivers
located under mountain ranges (Persat 1996). However,
anglers, sheries managers, and environmentalists claim
that populations of grayling have been steadily decreasing
in central Europe over the last 20–30 years (Gum et al.
2009, Weiss et al. 2013, Mueller et al. 2018). Recently,
grayling has become one of the most threatened inland
freshwater sh species in central Europe. By studying
the effect of both natural and human-induced effects on
grayling populations, other authors discovered that the
main reasons for the decrease in grayling populations
are droughts, climate change, predation from sh-eating
birds and mammals, shing pressure, river damming and
straightening, loss of spawning substrates, land-use, and
pollution (Northcote 1995, Persat 1996, Uiblein et al.
2001, Gum et al. 2003, Duftner et al. 2005, Sternecker et
al. 2014, Geist and Hawkins 2016, Bierschenk et al. 2019).
By studying human–sh interactions, previous studies
have also found that the interaction between recreational
sheries and grayling is one of the most important drivers
of grayling populations (Duftner et al. 2005, Näslund et
al. 2005, 2010).
Data from angling logbooks can be used as proxy
data for changes in abundances of sh populations
(Sztramko et al. 1991, , Gudbergsson 2004, Jayasynghe
et al. 2006, Mosindy and Duffy 2007, Skov et al. 2017,
Kerr unpublished*). The results of the studies listed above
suggest that a change in harvest rate potentially suggests
a change in abundance in the ecosystem. In addition, data
from angling logbooks were previously used by other
authors to monitor sh abundances and populations,
Lyach and Remr
54
water quality, sh sizes, effects of water damming on sh
populations, and changes in water temperatures (Cowx
and Broughton 1986, Binet 1997, Lorenzen et al. 1998,
Draštík et al. 2004, Jayasynghe et al. 2006, Younk and
Perreira 2007, Zeeberg et al. 2008, Gerdeaux and Janjua
2009). The interaction between anglers and grayling is
crucial in the conservation of grayling. However, there
are only a few studies that describe the angler–grayling
interaction (Näslund et al. 2005, 2010). In addition, those
studies describe catches of grayling on small spatio-
temporal scale. No study describes the angler–grayling
interaction on a larger spatio-temporal scale in a larger
geographical area.
This study aimed to describe changes in the catch
(sh number) and yield (biomass) of grayling on a large
spatio-temporal scale (241 studied shing grounds, 30
years of data) in the Czech Republic. We expected that
the harvest of grayling was decreasing, mostly because
anglers, sheries managers, and environmentalists claim
that grayling populations have been declining. It was
hypothesized that both catch and yield would follow
and mirror this trend. Another aim of this study was to
describe changes in the number of shing grounds with
actual catches of grayling. We expected that smaller
grayling populations would perish over time, and that
human-induced effects would lead to a decreased number
of streams where self-sustainable grayling populations
exist. Another aim was to assess changes in the size of
caught grayling over time. We expected that anglers would
be catching smaller sh every year, mostly because the
angling and predation pressure on grayling populations
seems to be increasing. The last aim was to assess the
effect of sh stocking on the sh harvest. We expected
that shing grounds with higher stocking rates would also
display higher harvest rates.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area. This study was carried out in the regions of
Prague (50°N, 014.5°E) and the Central Bohemian Region
(Středočeský kraj) (49.5°–50.5°N, 013.5°–015.5°E),
Czech Republic, central Europe (for map of the study area
see Lyach and Čech 2018a). Both regions together cover
an area of 11 500 km2. The region of Prague has mostly
urban character while the region of Central Bohemia has
a mostly rural character. The study area is dominated by
the rivers Elbe and Vltava. Both rivers belong to the upper
Elbe River basin. All rivers in the study area belong to
the North Sea drainage area. Studied shing grounds are
situated in lowlands of an altitude of 200–600 m above sea
level. Waters in the study areas are mostly mesotrophic
and eutrophic with biomass of 150–300 kg of sh per ha
(Lyach and Čech 2017b, 2018a, 2018b). The study area
includes salmonid streams (smaller streams, mostly <
10 m wide, usually dominated by salmonids) and non-
salmonid rivers (wider streams and rivers, usually 10–300
m wide, dominated by cyprinids or percids). Studied
rivers and streams are mostly at their carrying capacity
due to natural sh reproduction and intensive sh stocking
(Závorka et al. 2013). Grayling is a native sh species in
the study area.
Recreational shing in the Czech Republic. Recreational
shing in the Czech Republic is organized by the Czech
Fishing Union (Český rybářský svaz). The Union is the
principal authority in recreational shing in the Czech
Republic and is centralized for the whole country. Each
angler has to carry an angling logbook with him/her at all
times during shing. When an angler catches and keeps a
sh, he/she is obliged to write down the catch (identied
sh species, size of the sh in TL in cm, date of the catch,
and ID/name of the shing site). Filled logbooks are then
collected in January of the following year by the Czech
Fishing Union. Only anglers who submit their old lled
angling logbook will receive a new angling logbook for
the next year. Errors in lling of angling logbooks may
results into conscation of shing equipment, harvested
sh, or shing permit. Proper usage of angling logbooks
is checked in the eld by angling guards. Only killed
(harvested) sh are recorded in individual angling
logbooks. Fish that are undersized, caught during the
closed season, or otherwise released are not recorded in
logbooks. For a detailed description of recreational shing
in the Czech Republic see Lyach and Čech (2018a, 2018b).
Angling rules for grayling. Grayling, Thymallus
thymallus, is an important sh species in recreational
shing in the Czech Republic. The bag limit for salmonids
is either two sh or 7 kg of sh per angler per day,
whichever comes rst. Within 1986–2015 the minimum
legal angling size for grayling was 30 cm (TL, total
length). Any grayling that does not reach this size has to
be returned back to the water without any unnecessary
delay. All harvested graylings must be noted in individual
angling logbooks, including the date of catch, the weight
of sh, and the ID of the shing ground.
Grayling stocking. Annual stocking of grayling is
common and traditional in the study area. Most stocking is
performed on smaller salmonid streams and rivers (<10–
20 m wide) outside the main rivers. Grayling is mostly
stocked as 1–2 year sh (5–10 cm TL). Fish are usually
stocked in hundreds or thousands per stream. The main
goal of the sh stocking is to support wild populations.
Before sh stocking occurs, all stocked sh are weighed
together (in one bag) to the nearest 100 g. The number
of stocked sh is then estimated from the overall weight
by applying length–weight equations of the specic sh
species. The length–weight equations are based on data
from catches of a larger amount (at least 100) of sh that
were caught in the study area by sheries managers. Fish
stocking is performed by local sheries managers.
Data sources. Data from annual summaries of all
collected angling logbooks were used for this study. This
data originated from angling logbooks that were collected
from individual anglers. Fishing grounds are dened as
stream and river stretches where recreational shing can be
legally conducted. The selected shing grounds covered an
* Kerr S.J. 1996. A summary of Muskies Canada Inc. angler log information, 1979–1994. Technical Report TR-011. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Kemptville
ON, Canada.
Harvest of grayling versus sheries management 55
area of 125 km2. This data was originally collected by the
Czech Fishing Union and later processed by the authors
of this study. Data from 241 shing grounds collected
within 2005–2015 (11 years) were used to analyse catch
and yield per shing effort (data on shing effort were
available only from the year 2005 onwards). For that
reason, the harvest of grayling over the years 1986–2004
was not related to shing effort in the analyses. Data from
years 2016 and 2017 were not used because the legislative
rules in recreational shing signicantly changed since
2016 (minimum legal angling size of grayling was
increased from 30 cm to 40 cm TL, total length). In the
rest of the analyses, data from 241 shing grounds within
1986–2015 (30 years) were used. A similar dataset was
previously used for scientic purposes (Humpl et al. 2009,
Jankovský et al. 2011, Boukal et al. 2012, Lyach and Čech
2017a, 2018a, 2018b).
Biometric data. This study assessed the overall catch
(number of sh individuals killed) and yield (total weight/
biomass of all sh killed), catch and yield per one hectare
of shing grounds, catch and yield per effort (one shing
visit), the representation of grayling in the overall sh
harvest, sh body sizes (medium body weight), the
percentage of shing grounds with and without harvested
grayling, catch per stocked sh per hectare, and yield per
stocked biomass per hectare. To estimate the effect of sh
stocking on sh catch, data were used on sh stocking
from 3–5 years before the sh were caught. The mean
value of three consecutive years was used in the analysis.
Data on sh stocking from 0–2 years before the catch
were not included because stocked sh were small (10 cm
TL) and unlikely to grow to legal angling size (30 cm)
over two years. Data on sh stocking that were six years
or older were also not included, mainly for two reasons:
(1) the usual lifespan of grayling is 5–6 years maximum,
and (2) stocked sh usually display high mortality due to
stocking stress, predation, angling, and inability to adapt to
natural conditions. Stocked graylings were very unlikely
to survive for six years in the study area. Therefore, the
effect of stocking on catch and yield was calculated based
on data collected within 1991–2015.
Statistical analyses. The statistical programme R (R
i386 3.4.1.; R Development Core Team 2017) was used
for statistical testing. The package for generalized linear
mixed models (GLMM) was used to t the models
(Hadeld 2010). The function lmer in the package lme4
(version 0.99937542; Bates et al. 2015) was used to
calculate R-squared values (Nakagawa et al. 2013). In the
models, catch (sh number), yield (biomass), and body
weight of sh were used as explained variables. The
year, the intensity of sh stocking, and shing visits were
used as explanatory xed variables. The shing ground
variable was used as a random factor. One shing ground
was used as one sample in the analysis. Gamma error
distribution with log link function was used in the models
that described changes over time. The basic equation for
models was
Catch ~ shery + year
In other models, the catch was replaced with yield or
size, and (1|shery) was removed from the analysis in
the case when the model described the number of shing
grounds with and without catches of grayling. All shing
grounds were used in the analysis of sh harvest. Only
shing grounds with non-zero catches of sh (any species)
were used in the analysis of the representation of grayling
in overall catch and yield. Only shing grounds with non-
zero catches of grayling were used in the analysis of size
(body weight) of caught grayling. Only shing grounds
with non-zero stocked grayling were used in the analysis
of the effect of sh stocking on catch and yield. The
minimum probability level of P = 0.05 was accepted for
all the statistical tests, and all statistical tests were two-
tailed. Bonferroni correction was applied when multiple
groups were compared in statistical analysis. The results
presented in the Table 1 are derived from models in R
while the gures were drawn in MS Excel. The method
described above was previously used to analyse similar
data sets on sh harvest (Humpl et al. 2009, Jankovský
et al. 2011, Boukal et al. 2012, Lyach and Čech 2017a,
2018a, 2018b, Lyach and Remr 2019a, 2019b).
RESULTS
Overall summary. Within 1986–2015 (30 years), anglers
caught altogether 9 928 graylings of the total weight of
3 357 kg. In comparison, over 30 years, anglers caught
altogether 7 715 156 sh (of different species) of the
total weight of 11 512.87 t. Within 2005–2015 (11 years),
anglers visited selected shing grounds 5 739 535 times
and caught 1 320 graylings of the total weight of 436 kg.
In comparison, over 11 years, anglers caught altogether
2 234 110 sh (all species) of the total weight of 4 385
t. Anglers visited one hectare of studied shing grounds
238 times, on average, and harvested 0.0096 graylings of
the biomass of 0.0032 kg per hectare of shing grounds
annually. Fisheries managers stocked 1.44 graylings of
the biomass of 0.03 kg per hectare of shing grounds
annually. The results of all used statistical models are
listed in Table 1.
Catch and yield of grayling. Both catch and yield of
grayling decreased to 10% of the initial values over the
course of 30 years (Figs. 1A, 1B). Anglers were catching
0.6 sh and 0.2 kg of sh per hectare of shing grounds
in 1986. However, catch and yield decreased to only 0.07
sh and 0.02 kg of sh per hectare of shing grounds in
the year 2015. The model explained 16% and 5% of the
variability in catch and yield, respectively.
Catch and yield per shing visit. Anglers were catching
fewer grayling per shing effort (shing visit) every year.
Both catch and yield per shing visit decreased to 20%–
25% of the initial values over 11 years (Figs. 2A, 2B).
Anglers caught 0.0003 sh and 0.0001 kg of sh per visit
in 2015. After 11 years, both catch and yield per visit
dropped to 0.00007 sh and 0.00003 kg of sh per shing
visit, respectively, in 2015. The model explained 11% and
12% of the variability in catch and yield, respectively.
Both catch and yield were positively correlated to the
shing effort (intensity of shing visits). Fishing grounds
Lyach and Remr
56
with higher visit rates also displayed higher catch and yield
of grayling. However, shing grounds with the highest
visit rate (35 000–100 000 visits per year) displayed zero
catches of grayling (Figs. 2C, 2D). The positive effect of
shing effort on catch and yield was mostly observed on
shing grounds with lower visit rates (10–10 000 visits
per year). For larger shing grounds, there was a negative
relation between the number of angler shing visits with
both catch and yield of grayling.
Representation in overall catch and yield. The
representation of grayling in the overall catch and yield
of all sh decreased to 20% and 10% of the initial value
(in catch and yield, respectively) over the course of 30
years. The representation of grayling decreased from
0.24% to 0.05% and from 0.08% to 0.008% in catch and
yield, respectively (Figs. 3A, 3B). The model explained
5% of the variability in the representation in both catch
and yield.
Harvest in relation to sh stocking. There was only a
weak correlation between sh stocking and sh harvest.
Higher intensity of sh stocking did not lead to signicantly
higher rates in the sh harvest. Fisheries managers
stocked 5–1000 sh with a total weight of 0.1–27 kg per
one hectare of shing grounds, however, several shing
grounds with high intensity of sh stocking displayed zero
harvested grayling. Inversely, several shing grounds with
low intensity of sh stocking displayed relatively high
harvest rates (considering that overall harvest of grayling
was very low in general).
Fishing grounds with catches. Anglers were catching
grayling on a lower number of shing grounds every
year. The percentage of shing grounds with one or more
harvested grayling was decreasing over time. The number
of shing grounds with catches of grayling decreased to
30% of the initial value (from 12.5% to 3.7%) over 30 years
(Fig. 4A). The model explained 18% of the variability in
the percentage of shing grounds with sh catches.
Size of caught sh. Anglers were catching grayling of
comparable size (body weight) every year. The size of
Table 1
Changes of basic metrics in recreational shing over time with different sheries management (data are for catches
of grayling Thymallus thymallus by recreational anglers in the Czech Republic within 1986–2015)
Dependent variable Explanatory variable Intercept ± SD Slope ± SD P-value Var (RE) R2DF
Catch × ha–1 year 0.35 ± 0.14 –0.048 ± 0.0030 <0.001 2.8200 0.1600 2 681
Yield × ha–1 year 0.19 ± 0.11 –0.016 ± 0.0020 <0.001 1.5940 0.0500 2 681
Catch × shing visit–1 year 4.22 ± 1.14 –0.002 ± 0.0009 <0.001 0.0004 0.1100 2 681
Yield × shing visit–1 year 2.02 ± 0.75 –0.001 ± 0.0003 0.007 0.0002 0.1200 2 681
Catch × ha–1 shing visit 0.023 ± 0.071 0.00004 ± 0.000010 0.002 0.0048 0.04 2 681
Yield × ha–1 shing visit 0.012 ± 0.021 0.00020 ± 0.000004 0.002 0.0039 0.04 2 681
% in overall catch year 27.24 ± 4.37 –0.013 ± 0.0020 <0.001 0.0050 0.0500 2 681
% in overall yield year 24.87 ± 4.49 –0.012 ± 0.0022 <0.001 0.0180 0.0500 2 681
Catch × visit–1 stocked sh n × ha–1 0.00016 ± 0.00007 0.00008 ± 0.00003 0.26 0.00003 0.008 566
Yield × visit–1 stocked b. × ha–1 0.00009 ± 0.00003 0.00003 ± 0.00001 0.21 0.00001 0.003 566
N of sites with catches year 6.78 ± 2.78 –0.003 ± 0.0010 0.016 NA 0.1800 2 681
Mean body weight year –23.82 ± 2.98 0.012 ± 0.0014 0.410 0.0030 0.1800 164
SD = standard deviation, var (RE) = variance for random effect, DF = degrees of freedom, NA = not applicable; N = number; stocked b. =
stocked biomass, stocked sh n = stocked sh number.
Fig. 1. (A) Catch (sh number) and (B) yield (biomass)
of grayling, Thymallus thymallus, per hectare of shing
grounds in the Czech Republic within 1986–2015; the
whiskers represent the standard error of mean
Harvest of grayling versus sheries management 57
caught grayling did not signicantly change over 30 years
(Fig. 4B). The mean size of caught grayling per shing
ground was 0.35 kg and ranged from 0.25 kg to 1.8 kg.
The model explained 18% of the variability in sh size.
DISCUSSION
Data limitations. The dataset that is derived from
individual angling logbooks provided long-term data
on sh catches on a large number of shing grounds,
however, the data should be used and interpreted with
caution. Fish catches are reported by regular anglers
and not by scientists. Since the data are based on citizen
science, the error in the data is probably a bit higher
when compared to real scientic data. On the other hand,
recreational shing connects regular people to nature,
and, to a certain point, to scientic work. That is a big
advantage in a similar type of research. However, this
dataset has several limitations. Anglers may overestimate
or underestimate the numbers and sizes of caught sh,
disobey shing rules, and incorrectly identify harvested
species. Listed errors are made either unknowingly or on
purpose (Essig and Holliday 1991, Pollock et al. 1994,
Cooke et al. 2000, Bray and Schramm 2001, Mosindy
and Duffy 2007, Lyach and Čech 2017a, 2018a, 2018b).
Fisheries data also do not cover poaching or the catch-
and-release shing strategy. Especially salmonids display
high post-release mortality (Clark 1991, Casselman 2005).
However, the dataset provided data on 30 years of catches
on 240 shing grounds, and the data were collected by
approximately 60 000–80 000 different people during
at least tens of millions of working hours (Lyach and
Čech 2018a, 2018b). If the data were collected by a few
scientists, the bias in the selective collection of the data
would be higher, mostly because every person performs
shing a bit differently. It would also be impossible to
collect data on this strength. This dataset was collected
by approximately 60 000–80 000 people in the eld, and
therefore the bias in data collection should be low.
Fig. 2. (A, B) Catch (sh number) and yield (biomass) of grayling, Thymallus thymallus, per shing visit; (C, D) the
relation between shing visit rates and harvest (catch and yield) in the Czech Republic within 1986–2015; the
whiskers (A and B) represent the standard error of mean
Lyach and Remr
58
Political changes. Both catch and yield displayed a
signicant and visible change over the years 1989 and
1990. In 1989, the velvet revolution (fall of the communist
regime) took place in Czechoslovakia. The majority of
metrics in recreational shing were increasing until 1989,
and after that, those metrics started to decrease. Fishing
used to be a very popular leisure activity during the
communist era, mostly because regular people were not
allowed to travel to the western capitalist world (Europe,
North America), and the possibilities of travelling to
eastern Europe were very limited as well. Other means
of entertainment were also signicantly limited. People
shed to obtain food, mostly because food supplies were
also limited and often not available. After 1989, the
borders opened and people could travel, participate in a
wide variety of leisure activities, and buy the food that
they wanted. For that reason, the popularity of shing
decreased, and the number of shing visits also decreased.
That could have caused a decrease in catch and yield. The
agricultural management also changed after 1989; the
input of fertilizers into the environment decreased. That
caused a decrease in primary production in most water
ecosystems (Kunzová and Hejcman 2009). Unfortunately,
data on sh harvest before 1986 were not available.
It seems that both catch and yield increased from 1986
through 1989, and it would be interesting to see when
exactly the increasing trend started. In conclusion, it seems
that the fall of the regime was one of the most important
factors in recreational shing.
Catch and yield. Both catch (sh number) and yield
(biomass) are usually linked to the following three
parameters: population changes of sh species in the
environment, popularity of the catch-and-release shing
strategy, and interest in conservation of sh species
(Jayasynghe et al. 2006, Mosindy and Duffy 2007,
Skov et al. 2017). Those three parameters are also
interconnected; anglers are more likely to release rare
and endangered sh species (Arlinghaus et al. 2007,
Fig. 3. (A, B) The percentage representation of grayling, Thymallus thymallus, in the overall catch (sh number) and yield
(biomass) of all sh caught by anglers in the Czech Republic within 1986–2015; (C) the relation between the amount
of stocked sh per hectare of shing grounds and catch per shing visit; (D) the relation between stocked biomass
per hectare of shing grounds and yield per shing visit; the whiskers (A and B) represent the standard error of mean
Harvest of grayling versus sheries management 59
Bartholomew and Bohnsack 2005). Since anglers are
well aware of the poor population status of grayling, it
is possible that decreased harvest was partially caused
by the increasing popularity of catch-and-release shing.
By studying sheries discussion forums on sheries Web
pages, we found that anglers are strongly supporting the
conservation of grayling. Anglers claim that they are
releasing all caught grayling (Authors’ observation).
When the results of this study are combined with
opinions of local anglers and sheries managers, it can
be concluded that this dataset provided good proxy data
on changes in grayling populations in the study area.
Fishing grounds with catches. The number of shing
grounds with reported catches of grayling were relatively
low already 30 years ago, and the number was decreasing
over time. Grayling is a typical inhabitant of streams, and
the majority of streams in the area are not listed as shing
grounds (Czech Fishing Union, unpublished data). Instead,
they are listed as waters that are used for spawning and
breeding purposes (shing is not allowed there). Streams
in the study area are signicantly affected by pollution,
predation from piscivorous predators (otter Lutra lutra,
cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo, heron Ardea cinerea,
mink Mustela vison), shing pressure, and migration
barriers (Adámek and Jurajda 2001, Humpl and Pivnička
2006, Slavík et al. 2012, Závorka et al. 2013, Lyach
and Čech 2017a, Lyach et al. 2018). Another problem
is a shortage of grayling for stocking purposes. There is
usually not enough grayling to spawn, and therefore the
amount of YOY sh and yearlings available for stocking
is very limited (Czech Fishing Union, unpublished data).
Articial rearing of grayling in aquaculture is signicantly
less protable than the rearing of common carp, Cyprinus
carpio Linnaeus, 1758, or rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus
mykiss (Walbaum, 1792) (see Carlstein 1995). Import of
grayling from abroad is not recommended due to genetic
differences in sh populations (Gum et al. 2009).
Fish stocking. The effect of sh stocking on catch and
yield could be different in areas with pristine unpolluted
streams that support native grayling populations.
Especially streams that are situated in the mountains will
likely show higher catches of grayling. Return rates of
grayling in areas with pristine streams could exceed 100%,
mostly because anglers can catch both native and stocked
grayling there. For example, the biomass of harvested
graylings could be higher when compared to the biomass
of stocked graylings. This effect was observed for self-
reproducing sh populations of very abundant sh species
that are harvested by anglers. For example, European
chub, Squalius cephalus (Linnaeus, 1758), displayed
harvested biomass of 50–100 kg in the Berounka River
(Central Bohemia) even though no stocking of chubs
occurred (Czech Fishing Union, unpublished data).
Similarly, European catsh, Silurus glanis Linnaeus, 1758
displayed harvest rates of 8–10 kg per hectare on the same
river even though no stocking of catsh occurred either
(Lyach and Remr 2019c). There are streams with self-
reproducing grayling populations located under mountains
approximately 100 km from the study area (Horká et al.
2015). However, streams with natural grayling spawning
are rare, and this study describes the situation on typical
lowland streams.
Catch and visit rates. Catch per visit was decreasing even
more rapidly than catch per effort. It is mostly because
anglers were visiting shing grounds more frequently
each year, contributing to increased shing pressure
in the area. As determined by Lyach and Čech (2018a),
the shing pressure has been increasing recently. On the
other hand, both catch and yield have been decreasing
(Lyach and Čech 2018a). Another study found that shing
pressure was the highest on smaller streams where most
grayling are caught (Lyach and Čech 2018b). Therefore,
the effect of recreational shing on grayling populations
could be potentially even more important in the future. The
presently reported study also found that the representation
of grayling in the overall catch was decreasing. Since
Lyach and Čech (2018a) found that the overall sh harvest
Fig. 4. (A) The percentage of shing grounds with and
without a catch of grayling, Thymallus thymallus;
(B) the mean body weight of grayling caught by anglers
in the Czech Republic within 1986–2015; the whiskers
(B) represent the standard error of mean
Lyach and Remr
60
in the study area was, in general, decreasing, the presently
reported study suggests that harvest of grayling has been
decreasing more rapidly when compared to the majority of
other sh species.
Size of caught sh. The size of caught grayling was
constant over time, most likely because anglers are usually
catching sh that are slightly larger than legal angling
size (30 cm TL, total length). According to the length–
weight equations that anglers use to estimate weights of
caught sh, the mean weight of caught grayling (0.35 kg)
represents a 35 cm (TL) specimen. A 30 cm (TL) large
grayling should weigh 0.25 kg.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
In conclusion, the dataset clearly shows that catch and
yield of grayling have been decreasing over the last 30
years. The decrease in catch and yield can be most likely
explained by population decrease and the increasing
popularity of catch-and-release strategy. Intensive sh
stocking had no signicant effect on harvest rates of
grayling, suggesting that intensive stocking of graylings
was ineffective. Larger shing grounds displayed low
harvest rates of grayling, suggesting that anglers who
want to harvest graylings should focus on smaller-sized
rivers and streams. The data also suggest that the fall of the
communist regime had a signicant effect on recreational
shing, mostly because the harvest of grayling started
decreasing immediately after the changes in the regime
in 1989. This was likely due to new possibilities to travel
abroad and also a higher supply of other recreational
activities. This study provided yet another proof that
conservation of grayling as a species is necessary, mostly
because grayling is slowly vanishing from streams and
rivers in central Europe. We believe that anglers, sheries
managers, and environmentalists should join forces
with the scientic community to nd a way to conserve
grayling populations. We also conclude that angling
logbooks provided a very useful set of data that can be
used in sheries research. We suggest that future studies
should focus on monitoring of streams that still support
self-reproducing grayling populations. Similar studies
would hopefully help to conserve grayling populations for
future generations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Czech Fishing Union (Český rybářský svaz)
(namely Jaroslava Fryšová, Pavel Horáček, and Dušan
Hýbner) provided necessary sheries data. Pavel Vrána,
Martin Čech, Karel Anders, and Robert Arlinghaus
provided helpful insights into recreational shing. Otakar
Ďurďa and Marek Omelka helped with the statistical
analyses. Anglers and angling guards in the Czech
Republic collected data for this study and therefore made
this study possible. This study was nancially supported by
the Charles University Grant Agency (Grant GA UK No.
112 218), by Charles University (Faculty of Science), and
by the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports of the
Czech Republic.
REFERENCES
Adámek Z., Jurajda P. 2001. Stream habitat or
water quality—What inuences stronger sh and
macrozoobenthos biodiversity? Ecohydrology and
Hydrobiology 1 (3): 305–311.
Arlinghaus R., Cooke S.J., Lyman J., Policansky D.,
Schwab A., Suski C., Sutton S.G., Thorstad E.B.
2007. Understanding the complexity of catch-and-
release in recreational shing: An integrative synthesis
of global knowledge from historical, ethical, social, and
biological perspectives. Reviews in Fisheries Science
15 (1–2): 75–167. DOI: 10.1080/10641260601149432
Bartholomew A., Bohnsack J.A. 2005. A review of catch-
and-release angling mortality with implications for no-
take reserves. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries
15 (1–2): 129–154. DOI: 10.1007/s11160-005-2175-1
Bates D., Mächler M., Bolker B.M., Walker S.C. 2015.
Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal
of Statistical Software 67 (1): 1–48. DOI: 10.18637/
jss.v067.i01
Bierschenk A.M., Mueller M., Pander J., Geist J. 2019.
Impact of catchment land use on sh community
composition in the headwater areas of Elbe, Danube
and Main. Science of the Total Environment 652: 66–
74. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.218
Binet D. 1997. Climate and pelagic sheries in the Canary
and Guinea currents 1964–1993: The role of trade
winds and the southern oscillation. Oceanologica Acta
20 (1): 177–190.
Boukal D.S., Jankovský M., Kubečka J., Heino M.
2012. Stock–catch analysis of carp recreational
sheries in Czech reservoirs: Insights into sh survival,
water body productivity and impact of extreme events.
Fisheries Research 119–120: 23–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.
shres.2011.12.003
Bray G.S., Schramm H.L.jr. 2001. Evaluation of a
statewide volunteer angler diary program for use as
a shery assessment tool. North American Journal
of Fisheries Management 21 (3): 606–615. DOI:
10.1577/1548-8675(2001)021<0606:EOASVA>
2.0.CO;2
Carlstein M. 1995. Growth and survival of European
grayling reared at different stocking densities.
Aquaculture International 3 (3): 260–264. DOI:
10.1007/BF00118108
Casselman S.J. 2005. Catch-and-release angling: A
review with guidelines for proper sh handling
practices. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources, Peterborough ON, Canada.
Clark R.A. 1991. Mortality of Arctic grayling captured and
released with sport shing gear. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish. Fishery Data
Series No. 91-59.
Cooke S.J., Dunlop W.I., Macclennan D., Power G.
2000. Applications and characteristics of angler
diary programmes in Ontario, Canada. Fisheries
Management and Ecology 7 (6): 473–487. DOI:
10.1046/j.1365-2400.2000.00232.x
Harvest of grayling versus sheries management 61
Cowx I.G., Broughton N.M. 1986. Changes in the
species composition of anglers’ catches in the river
Trent (England) between 1969 and 1984. Journal of
Fish Biology 28 (5): 625–636. DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-
8649.1986.tb05197.x
Draštík V., Kubečka J., Šovčík P. 2004. Hydrology and
angler’s catches in the Czech reservoirs. Ecohydrology
and Hydrobiology 4 (4): 429–439.
Duftner N., Koblmüller S., Weiss S., Medgyesy N.,
Sturmbauer C. 2005. The impact of stocking on the
genetic structure of European grayling (Thymallus
thymallus, Salmonidae) in two alpine rivers.
Hydrobiologia 542: 121–129. DOI: 10.1007/s10750-
004-4951-7
Essig R.J., Holliday M.C. 1991. Development of a
recreational shing survey: The marine recreational
shery statistics survey case study. American Fisheries
Society Symposium 12: 245–254.
Geist J., Hawkins S.J. 2016. Habitat recovery and
restoration in aquatic ecosystems: Current progress
and future challenges. Aquatic Conservation: Marine
and Freshwater Ecosystems 26 (5): 942–962. DOI:
10.1002/aqc.2702
Gerdeaux D., Janjua M.Y. 2009. Contribution of
obligatory and voluntary sheries statistics to the
knowledge of whitesh population on Lake Annecy
(France). Fisheries Research 96 (1): 6–10. DOI:
10.1016/j.shres.2008.09.016
Gudbergsson G. 2004. Arctic charr in Lake Myvatn: The
centennial catch record in the light of recent stock
estimates. Aquatic Ecology 38 (2): 271–284. DOI:
10.1023/B:AECO.0000032100.28896.81
Gum B., Gross R., Geist J. 2009. Conservation genetics
and management implications for European grayling,
Thymallus thymallus: Synthesis of phylogeography
and population genetics. Fisheries Management
and Ecology 16 (1): 37–51. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-
2400.2008.00641.x
Gum B., Gross R., Rottmann O., Schröder W., Kühn R.
2003. Microsatellite variation in Bavarian populations
of European grayling (Thymallus thymallus):
Implications for conservation. Conservation Genetics
4 (6): e659. DOI: 10.1023/B:COGE.0000006106.
64243.e6
Hadeld J.D. 2010. MCMC methods for multi-response
generalized linear mixed models: The MCMCglmm R
package. Journal of Statistical Software 33 (2): 1–22.
DOI: 10.18637/jss.v033.i02
Horká P., Horký P., Randák T., Turek J., Rylková K.,
Slavík O. 2015. Radio- telemetry shows differences
in the behaviour of wild and hatchery-reared
European grayling Thymallus thymallus in response to
environmental variables. Journal of Fish Biology 86
(2): 544–557. DOI: 10.1111/jfb.12575
Humpl M., Pivnička K. 2006. Fish assemblages as
inuenced by environmental factors in streams in
protected areas of the Czech Republic. Ecology of
Freshwater Fish 15 (1): 96–103. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-
0633.2006.00126.x
Humpl M., Pivnička K., Jankovský M. 2009. Sport
shery statistics, water quality, and sh assemblages
in the Berounka River in 1975–2005. Folia Zoologica
58 (4): 457–465.
Jankovský M, Boukal D.S., Pivnička K., Kubečka
J. 2011. Tracing possible drivers of synchronously
uctuating species catches in individual logbook data.
Fisheries Management and Ecology 18 (4): 297–306.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2400.2011.00783.x
Jayasinghe U.A.D., Amarasinghe U.S., De Silva S.S.
2006. Culture-based sheries in non-perennial
reservoirs of Sri Lanka: Inuence of reservoir
morphometry and stocking density on yield. Fisheries
Management and Ecology 13 (3): 157–164. DOI:
10.1111/j.1365-2400.2006.00488.x
Kunzová E., Hejcman M. 2009. Yield development
of winter wheat over 50 years of FYM, N, P and K
fertilizer application on black earth soil in the Czech
Republic. Field Crops Research 111 (3): 226–234.
DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2008.12.008
Lorenzen K., Juntana J., Bundit J., Tourongruang D.
1998. Assessing culture sheries practices in small
waterbodies: A study of village sheries in north-east
Thailand. Aquaculture Research 29 (3): 211–224.
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2109.1998.00961.x
Lyach R., Čech M. 2017a. Do otters target the same
sh species and sizes as anglers? A case study from
a lowland trout stream (Czech Republic). Aquatic
Living Resources 30: e11. DOI: 10.1051/alr/2017011
Lyach R., Čech M. 2017b. The effect of cormorant
predation on newly established Atlantic salmon
population. Journal of Vertebrate Biology 66 (3): 167–
174. DOI: 10.25225/fozo.v66.i3.a4.2017
Lyach R., Čech M. 2018a. Do recreational sheries
metrics vary on differently sized shing grounds?.
Fisheries Management and Ecology 25 (5): 356–365.
DOI: 10.1111/fme.12301
Lyach R., Čech M. 2018b. A new trend in central
European recreational shing: More shing visits but
lower yield and catch. Fisheries Research 201: 131–
137. DOI: 10.1016/j.shres.2018.01.020
Lyach R., Blabolil P., Čech M. 2018. Great cormorants
Phalacrocorax carbo feed on larger sh in
late winter. Bird Study 65 (2): 249–256. DOI:
10.1080/00063657.2018.1476459
Lyach R., Remr J. 2019a. The effect of a large-scale
shing restriction on angling harvest: A case study of
grayling Thymallus thymallus in the Czech Republic.
Aquatic Living Resources 32: e11. DOI: 10.1051/
alr/2019010
Lyach R., Remr J. 2019b. The effects of environmental
factors and sheries management on recreational
catches of perch Perca uviatilis in the Czech
Republic. Aquatic Living Resources 32: e15. DOI:
10.1051/alr/2019013
Lyach R., Remr J. 2019c. Changes in recreational catsh
Silurus glanis harvest rates between years 1986–2017
in central Europe. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 35
(5): 1094–1104. DOI: 10.1111/jai.13956
Lyach and Remr
62
Mosindy T.E., Duffy M.J. 2007. The use of angler diary
surveys to evaluate long-term changes in muskellunge
populations on Lake of the Woods, Ontario.
Environmental Biology of Fishes 79 (1–2): 71–83.
DOI: 10.1007/s10641-006-9167-4
Mueller M., Pander J., Geist J. 2018. Comprehensive
analysis of > 30 years of data on stream sh population
trends and conservation status in Bavaria, Germany.
Biological Conservation 226: 311–320. DOI:
10.1016/j.biocon.2018.08.006
Nakagawa S., Johnson P.C., Schielzeth H. 2017.
The coefcient of determination R2 and intra-class
correlation coefcient from generalized linear mixed-
effects models revisited and expanded. Journal of the
Royal Society Interface 14 (134): e20170213. DOI:
10.1098/rsif.2017.0213
Näslund I., Eriksson T., Hannersjö D., Bergwall L.,
Jacobsson G., Leonardsson K. 2010. Time trends in
angler compliance with harvest regulations in stream
sheries. Fisheries Management and Ecology 17 (1):
52–62. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2400.2009.00707.x
Näslund I., Nordwall F., Eriksson T., Hannersjö D.,
Eriksson L.-O. 2005. Long-term responses of a
stream-dwelling grayling population to restrictive
shing regulations. Fisheries Research 72 (2–3): 323–
332. DOI: 10.1016/j.shres.2004.10.018
Northcote T.G. 1995. Comparative biology and
management of arctic and European grayling
(Salmonidae, Thymallus). Reviews in Fish Biology and
Fisheries 5 (2): 141–194. DOI: 10.1007/BF00179755
Persat H. 1996. Threatened populations and conservation
of the European grayling, Thymallus thymallus (L.,
1758). Pp. 233–247. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-0348-9014-
4_23 In: Kirchhofer A., Hefti D. (eds.) Conservation
of endangered freshwater sh in Europe. Birkhäuser
Verlag Basel, Switzerland.
Pollock K.H., Jones C.M., Brown T.L. 1994. Angler
survey methods and their applications in sheries
management. American Fisheries Society Special
Publication No. 25, Bethesda MD, USA.
R Development Core Team 2016. R: A language and
environment for statistical computing. R Foundation
for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://
www.R-project.org
Skov C., Jansen T., Arlinghaus R. 2017. 62 years
of population dynamics of European perch (Perca
uviatilis) in a mesotrophic lake tracked using angler
diaries: The role of commercial shing, predation and
temperature. Fisheries Research 195: 71–79. DOI:
10.1016/j.shres.2017.06.016
Slavík O., Horký P., Randák T., Balvín P., Bílý M.
2012. Brown trout spawning migration in fragmented
central European headwaters: Effect of isolation by
articial obstacles and the Moon phase. Transactions
of the American Fisheries Society 141 (3): 673–680.
DOI: 10.1080/00028487.2012.675897
Sternecker K., Denic M., Geist J. 2014. Timing matters:
Species-specic interactions between spawning time,
substrate quality, and recruitment success in three
salmonid species. Ecology and Evolution 4 (13):
2749–2758. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.1128
Sztramko L.K., Dunlop W.I., Powell S.W., Sutherland
R.G. 1991. Applications and benets of an angler diary
program on Lake Erie. American Fisheries Society
Symposium 12: 520–528.
Uiblein F., Jagsch A., Honsig-Erlenburg W., Weiss
S. 2001. Status, habitat use, and vulnerability of the
European grayling in Austrian waters. Journal of Fish
Biology 59 (Suppl. A): 223–247. DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-
8649.2001.tb01388.x
Weiss S.J., Kopun T., Sušnik Bajec S. 2013. Assessing
natural and disturbed population structure in
European grayling Thymallus thymallus: Melding
phylogeographic, population genetic and jurisdictional
perspectives for conservation planning. Journal of Fish
Biology 82 (2): 505–521. DOI: 10.1111/jfb.12007
Younk J.A., Pereira D.L. 2007. An examination of
Minnesota’s muskellunge waters. Environmental
Biology of Fishes 79 (1–2): 125–136. DOI: 10.1007/
s10641-006-9168-3
Závorka L., Horký P., Slavík O. 2013. Distribution and
growth of brown trout in pristine headwaters of central
Europe. Central European Journal of Biology 8 (3):
263–271. DOI: 10.2478/s11535-013-0133-1
Zeeberg J., Corten A., Tjoe-Awie P., Coca J., Hamady
B. 2008. Climate modulates the effects of Sardinella
aurita sheries off northwest Africa. Fisheries Research
89 (1): 65–75. DOI: 10.1016/j.shres.2007.08.020
Received: 31 January 2019
Accepted: 11 November 2019
Published electronically: 1 March 2020
